[Peace-discuss] Obama's no-exit strategy

[C. G. Estabrook]

[Ron Szoke pointed out the importance of this article on last night's "News from 
Neptune" (7pm Fridays on cable channel 6/99). As Nichols suggests, the 
combination of recession and war may well defeat an incumbent president - as 
happened in 1952 and 1968 - and perhaps 1992 as well. A consummation devoutly 
to  be wished, as it seem the only way to mitigate the US invasions and 
occupations in the Middle East and North Africa. --CGE]


    Obama's Too-Slow Afghan 'Exit' Strategy Scores Him No Political Points

John Nichols <http://www.thenation.com/authors/john-nichols>
June 22, 2011

Barack Obama won the Democratic nomination for president because grassroots 
progressives thought he was marginally more antiwar than Hillary Clinton.

After securing the nomination, Obama was elected president.

Upon securing the Oval Office, he promptly abandoned any pretense of being 
opposed to military misadventures abroad, appointed Clinton as his Secretary of 
State, kept the Bush-Cheney regime's team at the Department of Defense, surged 
more troops into Afghanistan and steered US forces into a new fight with Libya.

Now, the president is proposing to remove some of the troops he sent to 
Afghanistan 
<http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/167967-obama-afghanistan-us-troop-surge-withdrawal-war>---about 
10,000 (roughly 7 percent of the occupation force) by the end of the year.

The US force on the ground in Afghanistan will still be more substantial than 
the force that George W. Bush and Dick Cheney put on the ground there.

Indeed, even by the most optimistic timeline proposed by Obama, the US 
occupation force will at the end of Obama's first term be much larger than the 
US force that was there when Bush and Cheney left the White House in 2009.

Under Obama, the war will continue for years to come.

Under Obama, another billion dollars will continue to be spent every week to ten 
days on an occupation that the American people and the people of Afghanistan 
want ended.

And Obama's best-case scenario does not have the United States out of 
Afghanistan by 2012, 2013 or 2014. While the president imagines that combat 
forces may be largely out of the Afghanistan by then, he does not guarantee 
that. And he suggests that a dramatic US presence will remain beyond 2014---and 
almost certainly beyond what the president hopes will be his second term 
<http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0611/57595.html>.

That's too slow a timeline, according to everyone from House Minority Leader 
Nancy Pelosi, D-California, to Republican presidential candidate Jon Huntsman 
<http://www.politico.com/2012-election/>---who issued some of the first negative 
reviews of Obama's vague and disappointing speech. Huntsman voiced what is 
almost assuredly the most popular political sentiment of the moment, calling for 
"a safe but rapid withdrawal <http://www.politico.com/2012-election/>."

Senate Armed Services Committee chair Carl Levin, D-Michigan, shared the view, 
suggesting that Obama had not gone far enough and calling for an "accelerated 
withdrawal" of US forces. Senator Bernie Sanders, I-Vermont, summed up 
sentiments among Congressional Democrats when he said, "I appreciate the 
president's announcement, but I believe that the withdrawal should occur at 
significantly faster speed and greater scope." Key Republicans in Congress, 
especially in the House, were similarly unimpressed with the president's plan.

Congress was not impressed by Obama's speech.

But what of the American people? Is there any reason to believe they will be 
impressed that Obama has added another footnote to the story of what has become 
his war?

No.

Will Obama gain any political advantage as a result of his much-ballyhooed 
announcement?

No way.

"Removing a few brigades this year, then several more next year, still leaves 
more than double the US troops in Afghanistan than when President Obama took 
office. There's no military solution in Afghanistan. It's time to bring all 
troops and contractors home and focus on the political solution, which is the 
only way this costly war will end," explained Paul Kawika Martin, the political 
and policy director of Peace Action <http://www.Peace-Action.org>, who 
bluntly---and correctly---suggested that voters will be "disappointed" with 
Obama's tepid timeline.

The president is out of touch with his base within the Democratic Party, which 
will neither be satisfied nor energized by a tepid troop drawdown.

That's significant, as Obama needs to renew the faith and commitment of the base 
that nominated and elected him in 2008 if he hopes to be reelected in 2012.

As significant is the extent to which the president is out of touch with the 
great majority of Americans.

A new Pew Research Center survey 
<http://thehill.com/news-by-subject/defense-homeland-security/167825-pew-poll-majority-of-americans-favor-immediate-afghan-pull-out> 
finds that 56 percent of Americans want all US forces removed rapidly from 
Afghanistan. That is, according to Pew, an "all-time high" level of support for 
what might reasonably be defined as "immediate" withdrawal. (The term 
"immediate" can reasonably be read as a shorthand reference to the quick, 
orderly and complete removal of forces over a period of several months. What is 
actually "immediate" is the commitment to get all the way out; the process, 
necessarily, takes some time.)

The 56 percent support for rapid withdrawal represents a dramatic spike in 
antiwar sentiment since a year ago, when only 40 percent of those surveyed were 
in favor of a quick exit.

The Pew poll finds that 67 percent of Democrats 
<http://thehill.com/news-by-subject/defense-homeland-security/167825-pew-poll-majority-of-americans-favor-immediate-afghan-pull-out> 
favor ending the Afghanistan mission (up from 43 percent a year ago). Among 
independents, 57 percent favor a quick exit (up from 42 percent last year). 
Among Republicans, 43 percent are for rapidly removing the troops---and the tax 
dollars---that are being poured into America's longest war. That's a doubling of 
antiwar sentiment in the party of Bush and Cheney.

Obama may not recognize the shifting sentiments with regard to the Afghanistan 
imbroglio. But his potential challengers do.

Leading Republican presidential contenders, including former Massachusetts 
Governor Mitt Romney and former Utah Governor Jon Huntsman, support a speedier 
withdrawal than does Obama.

Other prominent Republicans, such as Texas Congressman Ron Paul and former New 
Mexico Governor Gary Johnson, favor the swift removal of all troops.

On Tuesday night, Obama committed himself and his administration to a vision of 
an extended occupation of Afghanistan---and occupation with no likelihood of a 
conclusion until after his first term is finished.

That will not yield him any political benefits. But it might help his Republican 
opponent, who might well run in 2012 as a more antiwar candidate than does Obama.

"In November 2012, voters will want to see less than 67,000 troops and even more 
contractors still in Afghanistan," explained Peace Action's Martin 
<http://www.Peace-Action.org>. "The President will need to speed up his plans 
and announce more troops coming home to please the electorate."


http://www.thenation.com/blog/161605/obamas-too-slow-afghan-exit-strategy-scores-him-no-political-points

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20110625/c63c24fc/attachment.html>